Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » Shell Rotella T4 VOA
| Shell Rotella T4 VOA [message #361997] |
Tue, 26 January 2021 20:15  |
uprooted
Messages: 72
Registered: December 2019
Location: Hilliard, OH
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
When I sent my used oil in for an analysis (bad news that one was), I figured I'd also get a virgin oil analysis done. This was on Shell Rotella T4 15w40, purchased at Wally World in late 2020, with a manufacture date of Oct 22 2020 printed on the bottle. I know there were rumors they had reduced the ZDDP in T4. I know the myth has been dispelled elsewhere on the web, but thought it wouldn't hurt to check back in and help the community a little bit. Looks to me like it has sufficient zinc and phos, but I am far from an expert on these things!!
Enjoy,
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/data/7341/medium/VOA_Redacted.JPG
Corey P /
Hilliard, OH /
1974 Glacier 26' /
3.70 FD /
ION Wheels
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Shell Rotella T4 VOA [message #362006 is a reply to message #361997] |
Wed, 27 January 2021 00:52  |
BobDunahugh
Messages: 2465
Registered: October 2010
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Karma: 11
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Nice to get that confirmation, Thank you for sharing. I get my oil in a 55-gallon barrel at a time. And have it blended to my own specs. It's close to the Rotella blend.
Bob Dunahugh
78 Royale since 2003.
________________________________
From: Gmclist on behalf of Corey via Gmclist
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 8:15 PM
To: gmclist@list.gmcnet.org
Cc: Corey
Subject: [GMCnet] Shell Rotella T4 VOA
When I sent my used oil in for an analysis (bad news that one was), I figured I'd also get a virgin oil analysis done. This was on Shell Rotella T4
15w40, purchased at Wally World in late 2020, with a manufacture date of Oct 22 2020 printed on the bottle. I know there were rumors they had reduced
the ZDDP in T4. I know the myth has been dispelled elsewhere on the web, but thought it wouldn't hurt to check back in and help the community a little
bit. Looks to me like it has sufficient zinc and phos, but I am far from an expert on these things!!
Enjoy,
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/data/7341/medium/VOA_Redacted.JPG
--
Corey P /
Hilliard, OH /
1974 Glacier 26' /
3.70 FD /
ION Wheels
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: Shell Rotella T4 VOA [message #362009 is a reply to message #361997] |
Wed, 27 January 2021 08:52 |
Larry
Messages: 2875
Registered: January 2004
Location: Menomonie, WI
Karma: 10
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I think it is important to note, just because in the old days ZDDP was needed in oils to assist wear characteristics, doesn’t mean that it is needed in todays oils. Oils have improved immensely over the years. Todays knowledge of chemistry and engineering have created oil blends that give us oils that far exceed the wear characteristics of yesterday’s blends. Todays blends have chemical replacement elements that duplicate the elements of ZDDP, so there may be only traces or no ZDDP in the oil, yet have extremely high wear characteristics. These oils have been formulated to assist todays engines in meeting EPA standards. Since most of us are not experts in the wear characteristics of oil, we act on what we know from our past knowledge and experiences. The past is behind us and while relevant, we need to look at present engineering going into the future. I’ve done as much as my pea brain will tolerate in researching the best oil for my Cad 500. So far the best I have found is a blog by a guy that calls himself 540Rat. He has taken the time using engineering techniques to test over 240 different oil blends, and ranked them by their ability to resist wear.
https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/
This is a tough read filled with testing, engineering data, a lot of self praise, and a lot of information that we don’t need, but is the best I have found to help me in my decisions relative to the oils that I am using in my vehicles. While it would be best to read most of the beginning info, for the meat of the blog, grab the scroll button and scroll about 1/10 of the way down to “WEAR PROTECTION RANKING LIST”. This lists oil in their ability to resist wear by measuring in psi their ability to keep metals from making contact. It should be noted that while he has tested an number of them ranked very high on this list that have an aftermarket oil additive, he does NOT endorse the use of oil additives claiming that you really don’t know what you are doing to the carefully engineered chemical blend when you pour in these additives. So he claims it is best to choose an oil that ranks high on the list straight out of the bottle.
The Wear Protection reference categories are:
* Over 120,000 psi = FANTASTIC wear protection
* 105,000 to 120,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection
* 90,000 to 105,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection
* 75,000 to 90,000 psi = GOOD wear protection
* 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODERATE wear protection
* 50,000 to 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE LOW wear protection
* Below 50,000 psi = CAUTION – EXTREMELY LOW wear protection
The HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.
I personally use # 5 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, dexos 1 – Gen 2, API SN “Plus”, synthetic (green bottle) = 133,125 psi, in my automobiles and #8 0W40 Mobil 1 “FS” European Car Formula, ACEA A3/B3, A3/B4, API SN, synthetic = 127,221 psi., in my motorhome.
Yes, the Amsoil products right out of the bottle have tested higher on this list, but the cost/benefit ain’t worth it for me.
If you want to see where the oil you have been using ranks, do a command F or Control F, type in the brand of oil, and hit CR to advance through the article until you find it. Some of the oils that have been the staple of the GMC community for years are surprisingly low on the wear protection list.
Sooooo….judge for yourself. Choose wisely by making informed choices.
JMHO
Larry 
78 Royale w/500 Caddy
Menomonie, WI.
|
|
|
|
| [GMCnet] Oils blended for more extreme uses. [message #362012 is a reply to message #362006] |
Wed, 27 January 2021 10:04 |
BobDunahugh
Messages: 2465
Registered: October 2010
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Karma: 11
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I got a PM about my post below. Our 78 - 403 works a little harder than most 403's. It pulls a 24ft enclosed car hauler. With a shop, and car inside. With a total weight in the 24,000 lbs range. The Royale is 12,000 lbs. of that. Total pulling Linda's life van comes in at 17,000 lbs. It's been 15 years since our GMC just pulled itself only. I personally rebuilt the trans in 2004. It's now in our second 78 Royale. Well over 100,000 miles. And still not rebuilt again.
Then I road race GM engines from the mid 60's. I run them in the 6 to 8,000 RPM range. Idle is at 2,200 RPMs. Head temps' approach 300 degrees. 13 to 1 compression range, 110 octane leaded gas that cost around $7.48 a gallon. At 3 miles to a gallon. That's $2.49 per mile. All day long. ( And you thought that your cost per mile was high in your GMC.)
The oil that I have blended isn't a synthetic. 10/30.
Bob Dunahugh
78 Royale since 2003.
4 COPO Yenkos
________________________________
From: Gmclist on behalf of Bob Dunahugh via Gmclist
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 12:52 AM
To: gmclist@list.gmcnet.org
Cc: Bob Dunahugh ; Corey
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Shell Rotella T4 VOA
Nice to get that confirmation, Thank you for sharing. I get my oil in a 55-gallon barrel at a time. And have it blended to my own specs. It's close to the Rotella blend.
Bob Dunahugh
78 Royale since 2003.
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Shell Rotella T4 VOA [message #362020 is a reply to message #362006] |
Wed, 27 January 2021 19:22 |
fbhtxak
Messages: 191
Registered: April 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Larry,
SUPER well stated!
When ZDDP reduction started in 1994, I talked with an engineering associate
in Exxon's (now ExxonMobil) lubricants unit. I was a "lifer" in XOM but in
upstream engineering and operations (exploration, drilling, production/asset
management) and had only a "conversational" knowledge of the company's
automotive products.
What you cite below is consistent with that engineer's explanation to me
then (i.e., that the reduction in ZDDP was more than offset in the successor
oil's wear protection properties).
I had only recently bought my '78 Royale in 1994. It had only 24K mi. on it
when the ZDDP controversy began. Based on the engineer's counsel, I elected
to use the oils in the API service categories that succeeded the high ZDDP
content oils. I preemptively replaced the oem "403" (with a "Paterson 403")
at about 140K mI. - because of an impending failure of the driver-side
cylinder head gasket (i.e., not "wear"). And - I just wanted the performance
of Paterson's modified "403" vs. the oem "403". I concluded that there was
no service life penalty from using the oils "after ZDDP". The make-up oil
requirement at engine change-out was about 1 qt/800 mi. at road speeds of
70-75MPH (and oil changes at3k mi intervals) - only slightly more than at
24k mi.
Another long-time GMCMh owner and I decided about the same time that we
would not chase the oem high ZDDP content oils. His experience with the
successor oils was similar to mine (i.e., no adverse effect on engine
service life).
Fred
Fred Hudspeth
1978 Royale (TZE 368V101335) - Tyler, TX
1982 Airstream Excella (motorhome) - Cooper Landing, Alaska
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 07:52:28 -0700
From: Larry
To: gmclist@list.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Shell Rotella T4 VOA
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I think it is important to note, just because in the old days ZDDP was
needed in oils to assist wear characteristics, doesn't mean that it is
needed
in today's oils. Oils have improved immensely over the years. Today's
knowledge of chemistry and engineering have created oil blends that give us
oils
that far exceed the wear characteristics of yesterday's blends. Today's
blends have chemical replacement elements that duplicate the elements of
ZDDP, so there may be only traces or no ZDDP in the oil, yet have extremely
high wear characteristics..
WEAR PROTECTION RANKING . lists oil in their ability to resist wear by
measuring in psi their ability to keep metals from making contact. .best
to choose an oil that ranks high on the list straight out of the bottle.
The Wear Protection reference categories are:
* Over 120,000 psi = FANTASTIC wear protection
* 105,000 to 120,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection
* 90,000 to 105,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection
* 75,000 to 90,000 psi = GOOD wear protection
* 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODERATE wear protection
* 50,000 to 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE LOW wear protection
* Below 50,000 psi = CAUTION ? EXTREMELY LOW wear protection
The HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.
Some of the oils that have been the staple of the GMC community for years
are surprisingly low on the wear protection
list.
Sooooo?.judge for yourself. Choose wisely by making informed choices.
JMHO
--
Larry
78 Royale w/500 Caddy
Menomonie, WI.
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Shell Rotella T4 VOA [message #362182 is a reply to message #362181] |
Wed, 03 February 2021 09:10 |
Larry
Messages: 2875
Registered: January 2004
Location: Menomonie, WI
Karma: 10
|
Senior Member |
|
|
JRWood wrote on Wed, 03 February 2021 08:19Thanks for the link. I read dang near all of it! Please tell me why you chose the 0w-40 for your motorhome rather than the 5w-30? I was thinking I would go with the Quaker 5w-30 in my 93,000 mile 403 and hope the synthetic doesn't leak or burn. If it does I'll chose a conventional from the list. Thanks.
JR,
The one thing I have learned is that with today’s oils, thicker is not better. As 540rat has said, it is best to use as thin of an oil as possible, high on the “Wear Protection”, that give you acceptable hot oil pressure. The thinner it is, the more oil you have going to bearings, reducing wear. The thinner it is the more oil is carrying heat away from moving parts. The thinner it is at cold temps, the quicker oil gets to the bearing surfaces reducing wear. The thinner it is at cold temps, the more oil you have actually going to those cold surfaces quicker, reducing wear. I use the 0W40 mainly because the “0” flows for my Wisconsin cold winter starts, (next week temps predicted at -15*) while giving me the “40” for acceptable oil pressure on hot running. On cold starts, I have oil pressure immediately with the "0", and 45-48lbs hot running down the road, and 30lbs and a hot idle. I think it is Matt C. that once said, the only down side is the “0” also has a run-off factor when sitting for long periods, meaning because of the low viscosity, it runs off easier than the 5w to 15w weights when sitting for long periods. If my coach has been sitting for more than a couple of months, I get by that by pulling the ignition wire and turning the engine over until I see the needle move on the oil pressure gauge….then hook up the wire and start. A minor inconvenience but IMO worth the effort. I’m gonna have to change oil on our next run to Florida which will be mid March after we get our Covid shots. Think I’m gonna try the 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability and see what kind of hot oil pressure it gives me. If acceptable, I may switch to that.
As a side note, one of the other things I noted is that many of the lowest rated oils in terms of wear, were the “Break-in” oils. Most of them rated in the Moderate to Undesirable Low category. Supposedly formulated to allow wear to take place for parts to wear-in to each other. My question is…why would you want wear to take place in a new engine? The cylinder walls…yes…but bearings? And, how does an oil decide what to wear-in….it can’t, so everything wears a little putting a lot of debris into the oil right away. If you look through a microscope at a final hone on a cylinder wall, you will see peaks and valleys. In the break-in process, the rings knock off the peaks. There isn’t an oil out there that can prevent that. IMO, break-in takes place in the first one thousand miles in the first couple of oil changes. One at about 50 miles and the next at 1000 miles. This last engine I built, I broke-in with a 10w40 synthetic blend. Engine consumes about a quart in 3K miles, and some of that is leakage out the front main seal. Next engine I build will get broken-in with the oil I plan to use for the rest of it’s life…a 5W30 synthetic.
I think it was Matt that also said that it is hard to find a "bad" oil out there, so to my way of thinking, if you have engineering and scientific testing that shows certain oils are better than others in reducing wear, why not go with it.
Just my relatively informed, off the cuff, back yard mechanic, gut level, eyeball it up and guestimate, (based on some actual research) opinion...that's all...
Larry
78 Royale w/500 Caddy
Menomonie, WI.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 18 13:57:03 CDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04908 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
